# NotfooledbyW....AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 20, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475 "2013-06-20T16:02:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 32
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/621 "2013-07-20T00:59:39Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You don’t know what I’ve said because I have never supported an AUMF vote that gave Bush a blank check to invade Iraq because the AUMF that passed did not do that. :dubious: > [@](#): > > I supported the vote to use force fully with the understanding that I had seen a change in Bush’s war actions in September 2002 when he put Colin Powell as the face of the pending confrontation against Iraq. You were fooled into thinking that an AUMF had any validity. It did not. Now you are too cowardly to admit your error. Trying to hedge your actual support in all sorts of silly, squishy reasons why your support was different than anyone else’s support simply makes you look dishonest. I have already demonstrated that any AUMF was wrong. Regardless how “criminal” Hussein’s regime might have been, there was never a legitimate reason to authorize an attack on the nation of Iraq. Therefore, any support for force, whatever your rationalization and regardless how many congresscritters you try to use to shield yourself from your actions, is wrong. You were fooled by W and now it just makes you cringe to recall how badly you fell for his hype. Tough. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/622 "2013-07-20T01:07:07Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > T&D does not speak for me. I did not support an AUMF that gave Bush a blank check for war. I have explained my position on that and if you are interested in the truth I will direct you where to look. … But none of us lurkers _GIVE ANY KIND OF SHIT_ about your retarded views. We are _NOT_ going to read through your retarded walls of text, even _if_ you point to the one it’s in, just to find out what we already know: You’re a retarded idiot who _was, in fact, Fooled by W_. Give it up. Only _you_ care about your excuse for being fooled by W. The rest of us are satisfied that you _were_, in fact, fooled by W. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/623 "2013-07-20T04:30:36Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > :dubious: > You were fooled into thinking that an AUMF had any validity. It did not. Now you are too cowardly to admit your error. > > Trying to hedge your actual support in all sorts of silly, squishy reasons why your support was different than anyone else’s support simply makes you look dishonest. I have already demonstrated that any AUMF was wrong. Regardless how “criminal” Hussein’s regime might have been, there was never a legitimate reason to authorize an attack on the nation of Iraq. Therefore, any support for force, whatever your rationalization and regardless how many congresscritters you try to use to shield yourself from your actions, is wrong. > > You were fooled by W and now it just makes you cringe to recall how badly you fell for his hype. Tough. What hype did I fall for? There you go again… Making stuff up since you got nothing otherwise. You cited this: > [@](#): > > I have never supported an AUMF vote that gave Bush a blank check to invade Iraq because the AUMF that passed did not do that But you must not be able to read it\> \*“… that gave Bush a blank check to invade Iraq” . \* That is dishonest. How and when and who are you to demonstrate that “any AUMF was wrong” Are you one of those Bush believers like Ravenman is? > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Ravenman “Yes, I think Iraq was in violation of 1441.” That is why Bush invaded Iraq. I believe you did understand the political reality in 2002 and 2003. > [@Bush bungled the diplomacy...how did he do that, exactly?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/12): > > ``` > You, however, are ignoring the fact that on the eve of war, the various polls showed the support for the war to be around 70% *if we went in as part of a U.N. declared intervention* but at only around 50% if we went in alone. > > ``` Fifty Percent for war without UN Sanction… and you think that political will could have been conjured up to deny Bush an AUMF. Bush would not stop his ignorant irrational self from invading Iraq after Iraq had shown three months of unprecedented cooperation with UN inspectors. He didn’t care about complying with either the AUMF he got and the UN Resolution he got and he said he wanted. And you with your twenty percent of 9/11 weakened political capital in 2002 think you could have stopped Bush from getting a resolution in October 2002 or the following month when his Party took the Senate and his Party kept the House. Well over two thirds of the US public in September 2002 thought Iraq had WMD and was a threat. And you didn’t. So Congress did the best they could when they agreed to the AUMF after whittling away at Bush’s version to get the ties to UN REs Enforcement in there and support for a new Resolution demanding Iraq resume inspections. The public wanted Iraq’s outlaw status confronted. So the lawmakers got it in writing that Bush could ONLY use force if he was enforcing ALL UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq’s disarmament. You were close to figuring it all out at one time. But today you ignore that Congress at least tried to force Bush to work only through the UN with an attempt to avert war if Iraq cooperated. Congress got it in the AUMF, and Bush ignored it. Yet you hold Congress responsible for Bush’s defiant and irrational actions. That is wrong. That is stupid. That helps Bush… Did you ever hear the Bushies respond to any criticism of Bush the war decider… Bbbbbuttttt Bbbbbbuuuutttt t Democrats VOTED FOR WAR. At least I know we agree that Bush was NOT ‘enforcing all UN Resolutions’ when he acted wholly and defiantly outside the UNSC and UN Res 1441. > [@Bush bungled the diplomacy...how did he do that, exactly?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/6): > > After the WTC/Pentagon attacks, Bush made several claims that anyone who did not support the U.S. obviously supported terrorism–and further declared the right to seek them out and “bring them to justice.” So first he declares that the U.S. is not bound by international justice, then claims that the U.S. can impose its own justice on whomever it chooses. > > When pushing for the war on Iraq, U.S. spokespersons verbally agreed to the demands of France that 1441 could not be an automatic trigger for invasion. Following which, Bush began sending troops to Iraq in such force that it was clear that there would be an invasion, regardless. Then, when pushing for the second (failed) resolution, Bush declared that he could use 1441 to justify an invasion, despite the earlier (spoken, not written) comments and despite the fact that Blix and company had not filed their own final reports. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/624 "2013-07-20T05:20:12Z")
Has anyone else asked NFBW this? Friend, you do realize that your words here aren’t as ephemeral as they would be if they were spoken instead of posted on an Internet forum, don’t you? You posted your blather. It’s there. It’s not cool to deny that you posted what you posted. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/625 "2013-07-20T05:31:30Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Has anyone else asked NFBW this? Friend, you do realize that your words here aren’t as ephemeral as they would be if they were spoken instead of posted on an Internet forum, don’t you? You posted your blather. It’s there. It’s not cool to deny that you posted what you posted. I reposted what I said. I stand by the entire statements in both cases. T&D is capable of citing an entire sentence and posting it, but for some reason is incapable of reading more than half of it with comprehension. It used to be that people would only post half a statement when they intend to perform a contextomy on it. But T&D just blurts the whole sentence out there and goes on with the contextomy anyway. Its not a meaningful way of doing things, but I guess there are enough suckers around here that never notice. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/626 "2013-07-20T05:40:13Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > What hype did I fall for? There you go again… Making stuff up since you got nothing otherwise. You fell for Bush’s hype that Hussein was a threat to the U.S. or the region. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You cited this: > > But you must not be able to read it\> \*“… that gave Bush a blank check to invade Iraq” . \* That is dishonest. Sorry. Whining that you had an escape clause after you handed Bush his keys to the kingdom is both naive and dishonest. _Ooooh! Look! It says right here that he was not supposed to do bad things if we gave him too much power. It’s not my fault._ You are the dishonest one, pretending that Bush would have ever refrained from using his congressionally approved powers once they were handed to him, powers “protected” from abuse by Bush’s willingness to abide by the letter of the law as you interpreted them. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > How and when and who are you to demonstrate that “any AUMF was wrong” I was a U.S. citizen who took the time to see the evidence put forth by the administration and recognize it as bullshit. There was never any evidence at any time that Hussein would launch an attack on another country following his defeats in Iran and Kuwait and the continued presence of the no-fly zones. There was no evidence, (despite strenuous efforts by the administration to manufacture such), that Hussein was involved in terrorist activities. Since he was not a threat, there was no reason to rationalize military force against him–particularly when we were already tied up in Afghanistan. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Are you one of those Bush believers like Ravenman is? > That is why Bush invaded Iraq. Bush invaded Iraq because it weas part of the overall plan of his neo-con buddies, many of whom he had invited into his administration. UN resolutions and congressional votes were the tools he used to carry out his stated intention, not the reasons for them. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Fifty Percent for war without UN Sanction… and you think that political will could have been conjured up to deny Bush an AUMF. I clearly failed to stop Bush. Most people fall into one of two camps: those who recognized that the war was not justified but was going to happen and those who were led astray by the Bush campaign to create the war. Only you, however, fall into a separate category that believes that your own (Bush created) views were entirely correct, then, but that Bush simply violated his word. I do not criticize those who were led astray by the Bush propaganda machine; it was powerful. I do point and laugh at you who wants to believe his tripe at the time, but then excuse yourself by claiming that he did anything differently than anyone who was paying attention would have expected him to do. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And you with your twenty percent of 9/11 weakened political capital in 2002 think you could have stopped Bush from getting a resolution in October 2002 or the following month when his Party took the Senate and his Party kept the House. The difference is that, unlike you, I do not run around bragging how I actually handed him the keys to the chicken coop and then whining that he stole the chickens. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Well over two thirds of the US public in September 2002 thought Iraq had WMD and was a threat. And you didn’t. The Bush propaganda campaign was powerful. Not everyone read all the outside information demonstrating his lies. We do not live in a society where people pay enough attention to details. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > So Congress did the best they could when they agreed to the AUMF after whittling away at Bush’s version to get the ties to UN REs Enforcement in there and support for a new Resolution demanding Iraq resume inspections. There were a number of congresscritters who pushed back at Bush and refused to go along with it. It is hardly my fault or theirs that you and the majority of the U.S. failed to look behind the curtain. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The public wanted Iraq’s outlaw status confronted. So the lawmakers got it in writing that Bush could ONLY use force if he was enforcing ALL UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq’s disarmament. :dubious: > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You were close to figuring it all out at one time. Thousands of us saw that. I was not alone. Unfortunately, millions were persuaded by the propaganda campaign. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > But today you ignore that Congress at least tried to force Bush to work only through the UN with an attempt to avert war if Iraq cooperated. > > Congress got it in the AUMF, and Bush ignored it. Congress covered their butts with a tissue thin dress of convenience instead of demanding that Bush actually make a case for his games. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Yet you hold Congress responsible for Bush’s defiant and irrational actions. That is wrong. That is stupid. That helps Bush… And there you go, trying to excuse your poor behavior and the failure of Congress on Bush, when anyone who wanted to see the truth did see it at the time. Levin saw it. Lee saw it. A handful of other congresscritters, (including a few Republicans) saw it. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Did you ever hear the Bushies respond to any criticism of Bush the war decider… > > Bbbbbuttttt Bbbbbbuuuutttt t Democrats VOTED FOR WAR. > > At least I know we agree that Bush was NOT ‘enforcing all UN Resolutions’ when he acted wholly and defiantly outside the UNSC and UN Res 1441. If the Democrats did not want to hand the Republicans that sort of political fodder, they could have voted to withhold the AUMF until there was evidence that there was a threat. That too many Democrats were stampeded into supporting bad legislation for fear of looking “soft on terror” is not my problem. That you are willing to pretend there was ever a legitimate reason to support the [Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution) in order to defend those Democrats who voted for it, (and many did oppose it), just shames you. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/627 "2013-07-20T12:25:03Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > If the Democrats did not want to hand the Republicans that sort of political fodder, they could have voted to withhold the AUMF until there was evidence that there was a threat. That too many Democrats were stampeded into supporting bad legislation for fear of looking “soft on terror” is not my problem. I think I figured it out: **NFbW** _is_ one of those Democratic Congressmen who voted for the AUMF. I can see no other reason for someone pretending so adamantly that giving Bush the green light to go to war actually constituted putting restraints on him. It would also explain his repeated “But 66% of the public supported going to war” mantra (as if it were somehow relevant to the wisdom of supporting the AUMF). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/628 "2013-07-20T13:15:47Z")
Wait. When did Hillary step down as SecState and when did Fooled By W join this MB? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/629 "2013-07-20T13:30:50Z")
What is truly incredible is that after what, 800 to 1,000 posts he’s made on Iraq, that he’s totally failed to find a single person to agree with him, including those who were even more anti-war than he (including yours truly). Plus the whole bit about accusing people who were anti-AUMFAI of being more pro-Bush than he was for supporting that resolution. That’s just hee-larious. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/630 "2013-07-20T13:41:54Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > I think I figured it out: **NFbW** _is_ one of those Democratic Congressmen who voted for the AUMF. I can see no other reason for someone pretending so adamantly that giving Bush the green light to go to war actually constituted putting restraints on him. It would also explain his repeated “But 66% of the public supported going to war” mantra (as if it were somehow relevant to the wisdom of supporting the AUMF). Well, considering that he _has_ been on the whole “I supported the war before I was against it” mantra for a few pages now… …is that you, Mr. Kerry? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/631 "2013-07-20T13:55:40Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > What is truly incredible is that after what, 800 to 1,000 posts he’s made on Iraq, that he’s totally failed to find a single person to agree with him, including those who were even more anti-war than he (including yours truly). > > Plus the whole bit about accusing people who were anti-AUMFAI of being more pro-Bush than he was for supporting that resolution. That’s just hee-larious. I know. You won’t find anyone on this MB more anti-war than I was (and generally am). I wasn’t even keen of the idea of the Gulf War 1, and almost everyone was on board with that. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/632 "2013-07-20T15:52:31Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Wait. When did Hillary step down as SecState and when did Fooled By W join this MB? Oh, come on! I’m a _Republican from **NY** _, where she was a senator, and I give Hillary more credit for brains and communication ability than to think she could be posting irrational, inarticulate tripe like **FooledbyW** does. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/633 "2013-07-21T02:33:52Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I know. You won’t find anyone on this MB more anti-war than I was (and generally am). I wasn’t even keen of the idea of the Gulf War 1, and almost everyone was on board with that. No anti-war soul on this earth would ever say the 2003 invasion of Iraq was both justified and legitimate. And you did write exactly that John Mace. You wrote it. Now fess up. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/634 "2013-07-21T03:24:30Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > No anti-war soul on this earth would ever say the 2003 invasion of Iraq was both justified and legitimate. And you did write exactly that John Mace. You wrote it. Now fess up. I think I see **NfbW** ’s logic: **NfbW** says the war was unjustified and illegitimate. **John Mace** has disagreed with something **NfbW** stated. Since **John Mace** disagrees with **NfbW** , **John Mace** must feel the war is justified and legitimate. “No anti-war soul on this earth would ever say the 2003 invasion of Iraq was both justified and legitimate.” Therefore **John Mace** is not anti-war. So it is proven. He has found you out, **John Mace**. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/635 "2013-07-21T03:38:28Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > I can see no other reason for someone pretending so adamantly that giving Bush the green light to go to war actually constituted putting restraints on him. The AUMF gave Bush the green light ONLY to defend US security AND _enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions_ which all fell under Res 1441 when it was passed. Bush did not ENFORCE 1441 - he shit on it. He shit on the AUMF. So your statement that I cited is false. Bush ran a red light on the AUMF and pulled off a hit and run to get out of facing the consequence for his reckless conduct. Self-professed anti-war types like John Mace witnessed the red light violation and the hit and run but Mace early on and after the invasion started, for some reason began spreading the lies for Bush that running a red light and a hit and run are legitimate and justified - but Bush just didnt articulate his version of the mishap very well. We can see that 42fish will not argue in a fact based way. He/she declares that the AUMF had no restraints because Bush ignored the restraints. So Bush is the dirty one and 42fish blames the legal document that Bush ripped up. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/636 "2013-07-21T03:43:39Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > I think I see **NfbW** ’s logic: > > **NfbW** says the war was unjustified and illegitimate. > **John Mace** has disagreed with something **NfbW** stated. > Since **John Mace** disagrees with **NfbW** , **John Mace** must feel the war is justified and legitimate. > > “No anti-war soul on this earth would ever say the 2003 invasion of Iraq was both justified and legitimate.” > > Therefore **John Mace** is not anti-war. So it is proven. > > He has found you out, **John Mace**. Mace posted it all in 2003. I was not here and had nothing to do with Mace putting on the record that Bush 43’s invasion of Iraq was both justified and legitimate. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/637 "2013-07-21T08:35:06Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Mace posted it all in 2003. I was not here and had nothing to do with Mace putting on the record that Bush 43’s invasion of Iraq was both justified and legitimate. Do you have to actually practice to be this retarded, or does it come naturally to you? I’m just curious, because I can’t fathom how it is to live one’s life so incredibly stupid. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/638 "2013-07-21T13:16:09Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > Do you have to actually practice to be this retarded, or does it come naturally to you? > > I’m just curious, because I can’t fathom how it is to live one’s life so incredibly stupid. Nothing I write is stupid. If it was you could point to something and explain how you reached such an abstract and hideously childish conclusion. Calling others stupid without explaining why or how or when is meaningless and it appears to happen among a certain high number of veteran posters here. We’re you among the posters here under a different name ten years ago. And if not what are your views on the US invasion of Iraq? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/639 "2013-07-21T14:21:40Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Nothing I write is stupid. If it was you could point to something and explain how you reached such an abstract and hideously childish conclusion. Most of what you write is stupid, because you have managed to turn probably every anti-war poster here against you. You’re like the Christine O’Donnell of the anti-Bush side. I keep expecting you to make a post CLEARLY STATING FOR THE RECORD that you are NOT A WITCH. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/640 "2013-07-21T14:22:21Z")
Supposed to be **The AUMF vote was barely discussed Sep 2002 to Apr 2003** Given that the AUMF is now the all and end all of why Iraq was invaded, it is interesting to note that Tomndebb posted little that I could find regarding that vote and what it meant. I see that back then prior to the vote, T&D had the same impression that I held at that time that Bush was pushing an agenda for invasion of Iraq and I believed at the time that Bush was pushing that he could attack Iraq because he had the support of the American people and had the support of Congress to be authorized to do it. I think that was the prevailing mood of all who were concerned that Bush was taking us down a doomed path to invade Iraq prior to September 2002, and then in September 2002 Bush began to change that push to preferring diplomatic means if that would work. The public did buy that line from Bush that diplomatic means was preferable to war. I can’ find anywhere in the time period of September 2002 through April 2003 were T&D and others discussed the AUMF. (perhaps I have not found the right keywords). > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 09-24-2002, 05:55 PM Post 034 tomndebb > > > > (Originally posted by december:) If we’re in imminent danger now, we should deal with that danger. Period. > > The U.S. has already demonstrated that it will invade any country that it believes has attacked or supported an attack. Bush is already trying to whip us up into a war frenzy. . > Straight Dope Message Board \> Main \> Great Debates > Given the Blair dossier, is there any alternative to attacking ASAP? > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=2464693&highlight=Iraq#post2464693](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=2464693&highlight=Iraq#post2464693) But I do see that T&D was aware that Bush did not follow what he was authorized to do in the AUMF with respect to ‘enforcing UN Resolutions’ It will be interesting to discover when the vote by Congress on the AUMF became the primary issue, where so many here assail those who disagree on the AUMF’s overall importance and slap the “You supported the VOTE FOR WAR” cliché against any intelligent open and honest resistance to dogma that exists on the SD forum. Its odd because there was little or no discussion about the AUMF in real time as that event was happening and after the start of the war. The divisiveness generated by the AUMF-obsessed here about that vote had to have come well after the fact. > [@Bush bungled the diplomacy...how did he do that, exactly?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/8): > > > [@Bush bungled the diplomacy...how did he do that, exactly?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/8): > > > > 04-13-2003, 12:49 PM “Bungling diplomacy” does not mean having failed to persuade France, Russia, and Germany. There are a number of reasons why those three specific countries may have refused to join the coalition or provide support in the U.N. > > > > “Bungling diplomacy” notes that Bush could not get even a simple majority of members on the Security Council to actively support him (and had trouble twisting enough arms to get a majority to grudgingly vote with the U.S.). “Bungling diplomacy” notes that it took the administration over two months to get such mighty warriors nations as Eritrea, Iceland, and Palau (while lacking a lot of NATO countries) to come on board and got only four countries to send troops. “Bungling diplomacy” indicates that there was such resistance to his efforts, world-wide, that most of his Arab supporters (many of whom appear to have been coerced to begin with) could not publicly declare their support for fear of their own populations. “Bungling diplomacy” notes that they sent Powell into the U.N. with badly forged evidence. “Bungling diplomacy” reflects such idiotic comments as Rumsfeld cutting Blair off at the knees the week before the invasion saying that the U.S. would go in alone if Britain backed out. “Bungling diplomacy” notes that Bush was barely able to get a majority of his own citizens to agree to his “go it alone” stance while the appearance of actual international support would have raised that number to nearly three-quarters, prior to the invasion. > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=3277103&highlight=Iraq%2C+vote#post3277103](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=3277103&highlight=Iraq%2C+vote#post3277103) Just saying! Any thoughts? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=33)